On 9 May 2015 at 8:59pm Pollster wrote:
Never mind that no country in charge of its own money supply can ever run out of money (it simply prints more); never mind that Britain wasn’t even remotely imperilled in the manner of southern European countries trapped in the euro zone and crucially, without control of their money supply or economic policy; never mind that the effect of coalition-imposed austerity was simply to remove huge amounts of liquidity from the system, grind the economy to a dead halt, and it only began to recover when those policies were significantly ameliorated; never mind that almost all macro-economists around the world (notably the Nobel Prize Winner, Paul Krugman; the Merton College, Oxford Professor, Simon Wren-Lewis; and even the International Monetary Fund (IMF) itself) had rejected austerity as a busted flush; never mind that not Labour, but the coalition, had doubled the national debt, and left it massively more exposed to an increasingly possible second crash; never mind that the economy had been growing rapidly when Gordon Brown was forced out of office; never mind that borrowing costs are historically low, and inflation is at zero; never mind that the welfare state itself had been built by the postwar Labour government at a time the country was technically bankrupt (so it simply borrowed instead, investing in infrastructure and setting a course for the Keynesian consensus); never mind that the now immortalised Liam Byrne note was a playful aside to his successor in the manner of long established Treasury traditions; never mind that, mindbogglingly, the Tories were proposing a more extreme version of the very policy which had failed so completely in the first place… none of this mattered.
If a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes the truth.
Check it out here »
On 9 May 2015 at 9:08pm Joe Kerr wrote:
Thank heavens for a posting actually based on reality.
On 9 May 2015 at 10:21pm belladonna wrote:
very interesting article. I had wondered myself about the huge amounts of polls and whether thy could be skewing the outcome of the election
On 9 May 2015 at 10:29pm Auntie Aviator wrote:
Liam Byrne's note was a nod to Francis Maudling, a conservative, yes conservative, Chancellor who left the treasury in a real state.
The letter recalls a similar note left by Tory Reginald Maudling to his Labour successor James Callaghan in 1964: "Good luck, old cock ... Sorry to leave it in such a mess."
On 10 May 2015 at 8:02am Paul Newman wrote:
Economists did not foresee the crash of 2010, everyone else did, correctly identifying the mortgage and housing market as the source if trouble. Just saying
Still, humbled and forlorn though Economists should be this chap is clearly has a brain that pulses with energy emitting low hum
I have wondered for ages why Krugman, who was obviously a twit was listed to with such respect, now I get it, like Chomsky( the ground breaking linguist) on Israel eh….. It is also nice to see the nonsense about printing cash dismissed. That this should need to be said tells you a lot of about how deluded the Labour Party and left are.
Labour were committed to Major`s spending plans in their first three years The state had been huge under Labour in the 70s of course but reduced under Thatcher and Major to 37% of GDP. In the years of growth that followed the state increased from 37pc to 50pc .
It is to this massive realignment of the country that I attribute our ongoing productivity problems personally, we are , a Nation is post collectivist torpor with an entire generation lured out of wealth creation into “Public Sector” professions .
Access to cheap foreign labour is also a distortion and I am not convinced that private borrowing is in itself the answer, not yet anyway.
Broon ran boom-time deficit of 3pc the maximum allowed under EU rules he tried to circumvent whenever possible with his PFI schemes . It could not be worse. As rhe answer to the crash was more borrowing I think the public are perfectly entitled to ask, when it is not a good time for more borrowing……
Note – Keynesian = Excuse for any State boondoggle needing a swalk from renta- boffins
Can we , by the way, for the nth time stop repeating the irrelevant fact that the Conservative Party eventually got swept into the whole New Labour Ponzi scheme by promising to match their commitments. They fought and lost two calamitous elections pleading for less spending before finally making a politically unavoidable commitment which ( as was much noticed at the time) left plenty of wriggle room should they win.
On spending and the economy Labour were wrong , culturally they are against a rising and generally benign Liberal Nationalism .. the dust heap of history beckons .
PS Auntie Aviator is right it was only a friendly gesture which unfortunately was a good prop to hang the whole argument from. I din`t like it, when did Conservatives become so humourless.....
On 10 May 2015 at 8:28am More sour grapes wrote:
Pollster, you lost me at "Simply print more money", are you actually Ed Balls? I guess you have time to write this drivel seeing how you & your crackpots were so overwhelmingly rejected
On 10 May 2015 at 8:44am Pollster wrote:
Some interesting responses here from people who I may disagree with but who obviously read and understood the piece. Unlike 'More sour grapes', who unfortunately found it too difficult to follow the argument.
On 10 May 2015 at 9:02am Mark wrote:
More sour grapes, it does say something that arch tory Newman is acknowledging that it was a light-hearted joke. The point is that governments don't just "run out of money" like someone down the pub. I was astonished although the election by how little understanding so many people seemed to have about it all. Can't really blame them it's very boring. My other half is very intelligent but has almost zero interest in politics. I'm banned from saying anything about it all at home. I noticed that most young people at work have no awareness at all of the left\right model and no awareness of the difference between the public\private sector. Has the curriculum been sanitised? I think that the Tories were lucky to have the simplest story to spin. "Labour spent all the money foolishly. A bloke left a note saying sorry. We knuckled down and sorted it out and now things are finally getting a bit better and there are beginning to be jobs". It's not the truth but it was a good enough story for people to grasp.
On 10 May 2015 at 9:06am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
None of which addresses the real problem with austerity as a tool of fiscal management: the poorer you are, the greater you will be affected.
Someone who is wealthy enough to spend millions on a house can also afford private health care, private education for their children, use a private car whenever they travel (although even the smoothest limo can only mitigate the worst potholes) is relatively immune to the effects of austerity. The super-rich can even afford their own security and should they lose their home, they will be able to check into the Savoy rather than sleep on the pavement rund the back.
They will never be spending more than 10% of their weekly income on their water bills, like someone on JSA will, or trying to decide whether to eat and sit in the dark or have light and heating but be hungry. They will never be turned down by every letting agency known to man because they are on a zero-hours contract so their earnings cannot be guaranteed, and end up homeless.
Why should they suffer while the rich go through this unscathed?
On 10 May 2015 at 9:38am em wrote:
Thanks to the UK’s appalling electoral system, we now have a seriously right wing government with absolute power from an absolute parliamentary majority, but which 63% of voters voted against, and which was supported by only 23% of those eligible to vote. I expect that many of those who did not vote at all, were not apathetic but actively disgusted by a corrupt political system which offers little meaningful choice in most of the UK.
Legitimacy is a different question to legality. The government is undoubtedly legal under the current rotten system, but its legitimacy is a different question entirely. Legitimacy lies on the popular consent of the governed. With an extreme government supported by only 23% of the population, actively planning to inflict actual harm on many more than 23% of the population, there are legitimate philosophical questions to be asked about the right of the government to rule.
On 10 May 2015 at 11:15am Paul Newman wrote:
Em- If we had PR we would have a Conservative UKIP coalition
This is the PR result
Lib Dem 51
This would be more right wing than any government I can recall although I very much doubt people would vote the same way under a new system.
Your legitimacy point is a very much less strong one than including SNP votes at all when they are on the way to fiscal autonomy . Furthermore no Scot has yet shown they are collectivist in the sense of wishing to pay higher taxes and I finjd it hard to imagine herding the Liberal Party into the Union run Labour clutches without defections.
Labour has not grasped the scale of its defeat and if you accpet that England has an equal right to be a Nation you can see that Labour is an irrelevant and permanent minority
Only today Mandy was back on ADMITTING the 2010 leadership election had been abused and corrupted by UNION MONEY and DIRTY TACTICS from Unision and Unite
How could any sane person have even considered voting for this Party who in addition to failing the most basic tests of fitness to govern have made themselves the anti English Party
On 10 May 2015 at 11:57am Mark wrote:
You came back Newman. You redipped your toe in the water. You were cautious and you were vaguely balanced. You lasted twoish days. That's ridiculous.
On 10 May 2015 at 12:31pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Your hypothesis is claptrap, Paul. It's predicated on the basis that people would have voted broadly the same way if we had some form of PR.
They wouldn't have done anything of the sort. In fact, they quite possibly would have voted differently under STV from AV.
On 10 May 2015 at 12:54pm Pollster wrote:
The thing is - Cameron has a majority of 12, which is nothing. Six by-elections and his majority has gone. He has a rabid right-wing still aching to get rid of him. What happened to John Major in the 1990s could be nursery stuff compared to what the Raving Right will inflict on Cameron.
On 10 May 2015 at 1:55pm Pyrrhic Victory. wrote:
Let`s hope so eh!
On 10 May 2015 at 2:31pm Phallic Victory wrote:
With a right phallus @ the helm. Good luck, old cock.
On 10 May 2015 at 3:22pm The Twister wrote:
I can only assume that as Paul Newman's acting career is practically over he has too much on his hands. Try and keep it short and snappy next time....
On 10 May 2015 at 7:20pm Paul Newman wrote:
ANC - As I said "..... I very much doubt people would vote the same way under a new system" as it is we have an administration which won the popular vote , the most seats and got a majority in England
Scotland has its own Parliament and will be relatively unaffected and increasingly so ., The only bit of the jigsaw missing is to balance Scotland's independence with English rights wherby yoiu will ion effect have a federal system
On 10 May 2015 at 7:45pm Country Boy wrote:
and would the left wing posters on here have been complaining about the system if they had won......?
On 10 May 2015 at 9:00pm Clifford wrote:
Country Boy, are any 'left wing posters' complaining about the voting system? I can't say I've noticed.
On 10 May 2015 at 10:09pm Paul Newman wrote:
The lefts hatred of England is showing its teeth. This needs to be remembered
Check it out here »
On 10 May 2015 at 11:29pm Hermann wrote:
Why not round them up and put them into camps?
On 11 May 2015 at 12:41pm love lewes wrote:
I hear that Matt Woodruff is selling Sour grapes and a Money tree as clearly thats what you have and need.